Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 23;16(7):e0255070. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255070

The association between guidelines adherence and clinical outcomes during pregnancy in a cohort of women with cardiac co-morbidities

Sandra Millington 1,*, Suzanne Edwards 2, Robyn A Clark 3, Gustaaf A Dekker 4, Margaret Arstall 5
Editor: Sara Ornaghi6
PMCID: PMC8301645  PMID: 34297761

Abstract

Background/Aims

Maternal and infant morbidities associated with pregnant women with cardiac conditions are a global issue contingent upon appropriate care. This study aimed to describe the clinical variables and their association with the adherence scores to perinatal guidelines for pregnant women with cardiac conditions. The clinical variables included cardiac, perinatal, and neonatal outcomes and complications.

Methods

Using a retrospective cross-sectional medical record audit, data were abstracted and categorised as cardiac, obstetric, and neonatal predictors. Linear regression modelling was used to find the mean difference (MD) in adherence scores for each predictor, including a 95% confidence interval (CI) and a significance value for all the three categories’ clinical outcomes.

Results

This maternal cohort’s (n = 261) cardiac complications were primarily arrhythmias requiring treatment (29.9%), particularly SVT (28%), a new diagnosis of valvular heart disease and congenital heart disease (24%) and decompensated heart failure (HF) (16%). Women with HF had associated increased adherence scores (MD = 3.546, 95% CI: 1.689, 5.403) compared to those without HF. Elective LSCS mode of delivery was associated with a higher adherence score (MD = 5.197, 95% CI: 3.584, 6.811) than non-elective LSCS subgroups. Babies admitted to intensive /special care had greater adherence to the guidelines (MD = 3.581, 95% CI: 1.822, 5.340) than those not requiring the same care.

Conclusions

Some pregnancy associated complications and morbidities were associated with higher adherence scores, reflecting that a diagnosis, identification of morbidities or risk factors, initiation of appropriate multidisciplinary involvement and adherence to guidelines were associated. Conversely, potentially avoidable major complications such as sepsis were associated with a low adherence score.

Trial registration

ACTRN12617000417381.

Introduction

Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of maternal mortality, accounting for up to 15% of maternal deaths and complicating between 1% and 4% of pregnancies, with the associated morbidities becoming an increasingly recognised issue, warranting our attention [14]. However, limited data is available on cardiac disease in pregnancy in Australia, and research is underreported [5, 6]. The national maternal mortality ratio, i.e. the number of deaths per 100, 000 women giving birth, was reportedly below ten from 2008 to 2017 [6, 7]. Yet cardiac-related maternal deaths occurring during pregnancy are classified as indirect maternal deaths due to preexistent medical conditions or disease acquired during pregnancy rather than the consequence of direct obstetric death [5]. Heart disease in pregnancy consists of a heterogeneous group of disorders inclusive of corrected and uncorrected congenital lesions, valvular disease, arrhythmias, aortopathies, cardiomyopathies, acquired atherosclerotic heart disease, genetic conditions, and cardiac complications associated with severe hypertensive disorders [6, 8]. Due to the increased physiological stress of pregnancy on the maternal cardiovascular system, maternal preexisting or cardiac pathological conditions acquired during pregnancy may have different outcomes than those in the non-pregnant state [9].

Background and rationale

The two broad categories of cardiac conditions in pregnancy are preexistent heart disorders and pregnancy-acquired cardiac conditions [10, 11]. Congenital heart disease (CHD) is the predominant diagnosis of all cardiac lesions in developed countries (75% to 82%). Conversely, rheumatic heart disease comprises 56% and 89% of pregnancy-related cardiac conditions reported in developing countries, i.e. middle and low-income, respectively [8]. However, acquired cardiac complications may occur throughout pregnancy, including six months post-partum, when women recover to their prepregnancy haemodynamic status.

Women with a preexistent medical condition or prior adverse pregnancy outcomes are at increased risk of cardiac complications in subsequent pregnancies and later in life [4, 12, 13]. Adverse pregnancy outcomes include complications, such as maternal placental syndromes and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Likewise, pregnant women with cardiac conditions are at increased risk of obstetric and neonatal complications [1419]. Therefore, high risk cardiac pregnancies present clinicians with significant challenges.

Consequently, a comprehensive antenatal assessment and, ideally, preconception counselling are firmly recommended in best practice [20]. A healthy mother and baby are the aspirations of all pregnant women and the health care team delivering care during their pregnancy. The clinical outcomes for women with cardiac conditions during pregnancy are influenced by the health care ‘providers’ expertise and knowledge of best practice perinatal guidelines and the healthcare system’s capacity or limitations [20].

During pregnancy, cardiovascular disease (CVD) management guidelines have been informed by knowledge generated through case reports, registries, and expert opinion rather than evidence from randomised clinical trials [2, 5, 21]. In both South Australia and Western Australia, statewide guidelines integrate all levels of evidence to aspire to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity [22, 23]. This present study contributes to the broader research, of established statewide cardiac-specific perinatal guidelines for women with cardiac disease during pregnancy across the three major public hospitals, in Adelaide, South Australia. The aim was to measure clinical practice against guideline recommendations to verify real-life practice and identify gaps for quality improvement measures.

Aim

The study aimed to describe clinical variables, i.e., morbidities, outcomes, interventions, and their association with the adherence score for the cardiac-specific statewide perinatal guidelines for women with cardiac conditions during pregnancy, with the following objectives:

  • Describe the frequency of clinical morbidities, outcomes, and interventions in the preexistent and acquired cardiac groups of the cohort of women with cardiac conditions during pregnancy.

  • Determine the association between the adherence to guidelines score and clinical variables, i.e., outcomes, complications and required interventions.

Methods

Study design and population

This research is a preplanned sub-study of the retrospective cross-sectional observational audit that evaluated adherence to clinical practice guidelines for South Australian pregnant women with cardiac conditions between 2003 and 2013. Details of the study design, data abstraction tool, settings, selection criteria and the evaluation of adherence to clinical practice guidelines across three hospital sites were published previously. In summary, we showed that variance in adherence correlated with the exposure to the higher acuity cases and appropriate up-referral to the only high risk referral centre for the state, the quartenary hospital two, which provided (level six) care, i.e. maternal cardiac and neonatal intensive care services. Likewise, hospital one offered intermediate care (level five) inclusive of tertiary maternal services, intensive care and specialised neonatal care services but excluded babies less than 32 weeks. Also, hospital three was a stand-alone maternity unit attached to a large neonatal intensive care, yet without a maternity intensive care service onsite [20].

The previous study evaluated the adherence to recommendations within the guidelines. The predictors for adherence were examined, such as the hospital sites, the two broad cardiac groups, underlying cardiac causes, risk level of pregnancy, multidisciplinary team collaboration, maternal and baby demographic factors. The participants included only women with ‘preexistent’ and ‘newly acquired’ heart disease during pregnancy, with a more comprehensive discussion on the selection criteria presented in Millington (2020) et al. [20].

The cohort’s broad spectrum of maternal cardiac diagnosis and neonatal diagnosis which includes rare syndromes namely Scimitar, Goldenhar and Noonan are available in S1 and S2 Tables [2426].

Ethics approval

South Australian Health Human Research Ethics Committee approved this study (Reference HREC 13 TQEH/LMH 226: Extension to Approval 03/08/2015). The Research Ethics approval granted the researcher access to medical records to collect data, and consent was not required from the participants. Anonymity was ensured with the ‘participants’ identifiable information coded and stored with a separate password-protected file on the university server and labelled for deletion in 15 years.

Data sources /measurements

Guideline adherence score

The total adherence score, a numerical value for each participant, reflected the adherence to the contents of the statewide perinatal guidelines. Scoring encompassed preconception counselling, antenatal care (clinical assessment and investigations), foetal wellbeing assessments, planned risk stratification, mode of delivery and labour recommendations as per guidelines [20]. A scoring system was devised that measured adherence variables used in this study were equally weighted, giving a maximum score of forty to measure adherence. Positive documentation of the guidelines, regardless of the entry point, achieved a score. A minimum score of acceptable guideline adherence was determined after comparing the two cardiac groups mean, and median adherence scores with expert review of selected cases identifying the minimum expected care. From this analysis, a score of 35 (for the ‘preexistent’) and 17 (for the ‘newly acquired’) cardiac conditions were deemed acceptable guideline adherence.

Clinical outcomes

The data collected from the retrospective clinical audit of medical records identified pregnancy complications for mother and baby, including morbidities, outcomes, the expected clinical investigations and interventions. Therefore, the string data required coding and categorisation. Likewise, variables utilised in the statistical analysis were categorised into three groups, namely: maternal cardiac (n = 17), obstetric (n = 17) and neonatal (n = 20) see S3 Table. Explicitly, the clinical variables for both primary and secondary clinical outcomes, investigations, and interventions during pregnancy could alter the trajectory for mother and baby, thus influencing the uptake of guidelines and acute complications related to poor guideline adherence [19].

Data cleaning and screening process

The study implemented a three-step process to screen and clean data, repetitive screening, diagnosis and editing [27]. The procedures encompassed checking for consistencies in the data flow, exploring construing factors, comparing the analysis dataset and raw database for errors such as double entry, missing values, unreadable data, and writing error. Those cases with data missing for the clinical variables were excluded in the final analysis. Thus, the sample size reduced from 271 to 261 for the final analysis.

Bias

Inherent bias may be apparent when women presented late to prenatal care or delivered prematurely, such that their access to guideline-based healthcare was delayed or curtailed. Furthermore, data collection was by a single reviewer (author one) with selected case adjudication sessions undertaken with authors four and five who are specialists in a tertiary hospital multidisciplinary team for high risk pregnancies.

Sample size and power calculations

A sample size and power calculation were performed and reported on in a previous paper on this topic [20] based on adherence to guidelines. The sample size acquired provides a substantial ‘margin for error’ to compensate for missing data, but possibly not for rare events such as maternal deaths (n = 1).

Clinical outcome variables

The clinical outcomes have been subdivided into three groups, namely cardiac, obstetric and neonatal.

Cardiac variables

The cardiac data collected were adverse cardiac events in the puerperium, including six months post-partum. Our primary clinical outcomes were maternal cardiac death, cardiac arrest, decompensated heart failure (HF) and acute pulmonary oedema, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and a new diagnosis of valvular heart disease (VHD) or congenital heart disease (CHD) diagnosis during pregnancy [3, 2831]. Women in the preexistent cardiac group diagnosed with additional cardiac pathologies such as VHD or CHD to their known heart disease during pregnancy were recorded.

Secondary clinical outcomes were arrhythmias requiring treatment and non-specific chest pain. Likewise, all invasive cardiac interventions appropriate to the statewide guidelines were included. Non-invasive procedures included computed tomography (CT), pulmonary angiography (CTPA), and echocardiography. Invasive procedures included coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), electrophysiology (EP) studies with or without accessory pathway ablation, placement of a cardiac internal electrical device (CIED), balloon valvoplasty and cardiac surgery [28, 32, 33].

Obstetric variables

Given the known correlation between obstetric complications and pregnant women with cardiac conditions, obstetric data were collected [4, 13]. These included gestational hypertension (GH), preeclampsia (PET), antepartum and post-partum haemorrhage, placental dysfunction, i.e., placenta praevia and accreta, threatened premature onset of labour, preterm birth, failure to progress in labour, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) and maternal sepsis [4, 16]. Also, the guidelines recommend vaginal delivery for women with cardiac conditions, with a shortened active phase in the second stage of labour to mitigate cardiovascular stress and potential complications; therefore, data on delivery methods were collected [34].

Data were collected for normal vaginal deliveries (NVD), instrumental vaginal deliveries (forceps and vacuum device), both elective and emergency lower segment caesarean sections (LSCS) and where the surgical approaches proceeded to hysterectomy or laparotomy. Likewise, where the women’s planned delivery deviated with potential changes in adherence to the perinatal guidelines was examined. The obstetric variable ‘deviation from the planned delivery mode’ captured this data.

Neonatal variables

Preexistent maternal heart disease, possibly via a decline in maternal cardiac output during pregnancy (IUGR) and obstetric complications, are associated with an increased risk of neonatal complications [14, 19]. Therefore, this study collected data for neonatal complications. Our primary outcomes of neonatal mortality (death within 30 days of delivery), intrauterine foetal death (IUFD) (> 20 weeks gestation) and medical termination of the pregnancy for a maternal cardiac condition. Secondary neonatal outcomes of prematurity (< 37 weeks), clinical diagnosis of IUGR, congenital heart disease and genetic abnormalities data [35]. Perinatal data had birthweight <10th percentile or birthweight <2500g if the gestational age was unknown, low Apgar scores (< 7 at 1 and 5 minutes), and respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) with and without respiratory support. The data collected for resuscitation measures at birth ranged from low intensity, i.e., tactile stimuli, suction, oxygen therapy with bag-mask ventilation, invasive intubation, and ventilation. Data for interhospital retrievals with admissions to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) or Special Baby Care Unit level 3 (SBCU3) were collected [29, 36, 37].

Statistical analysis

Analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows (version 26.0 IBM Corp, Armonk, NY). Descriptive analyses of the overall adherence score, frequency tables of the relevant categorical data and coded variables for women in the two cardiac groups were carried out. Cross-tabulations of the categorical variables and cardiac group indicated whether these variables were related. The total adherence score was normally distributed on inspection of the histogram and presented as mean +/- standard deviation (SD).

Univariate linear regression analysis of the total adherence score versus the separate cardiac, obstetric, and neonatal categories was performed (see S5S7 Tables). The following are reported for all clinical variables: mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI), significance value, adjusted R Squared, change in R Squared, and frequencies. The linear regression assumptions: normality of residuals and homoscedasticity (equal spread of variance) were found to be upheld in all univariate models by inspection of histograms and scatterplots of residual and predicted values.

The authors performed multivariable regression analysis using a p value cut-off criterion of 0.2 on the univariate linear regression results [38, 39]. Specifically, the inclusion of all covariates with p value <0.2 on univariate regression analysis were included in an initial multivariable model, followed by backward elimination until all remaining covariates had a p value < 0.2 [39] refer to S5S7 Tables. Multivariable regression modelling with backwards elimination was undertaken on three separate regression models for obstetrics, neonatal and cardiac predictors, respectively (refer to Tables 24). This is how the final multivariable parsimonious model (presented in Table 5) was built.

Table 2. Multivariable linear regression model results for the adherence score versus maternal cardiac clinical variables.

Clinical variables Mean difference Adherence score (95% CI) Standardized Coefficients Beta P value N (%) N = 261
Cardiac clinical outcomes.
Decompensated Heart failure (HF) 5.062 (2. 976,7.147) 0.286 <0.001 42 (16)
Non- specific chest pain 1.846 (-0.348,4.039) 0.113 0.099 52 (19.9)
Cardiac interventions.
*CTPA+ Echocardiogram -3.388 (-6.308, -0.467) -0.156 0.023 26 (10)
Cardiovascular Implantable Electrical Device (CIED) 4.801 (-0190, 9.792) 0.111 0.059 6 (2.3)
Cardiac Surgery required 5. 962 (0.968, 10.956) 0.137 0.019 6 (2.3)
Balloon Valvoplasty required. 10.027 (3.177,16.876) 0.164 0.004 3 (1.1)
Coronary angiogram with/without PCI -2.646 (-6.187, 0.896) -0.092 0.142 14 (5.4)
Other factors
Acquired cardiac group -2.264 (-3.843,-0.686) -0.174 0.005 122 (46.7)

Significance p value <0.2. All clinical variables were yes vs no.

*CTPA+ Echocardiogram = Computed-tomography pulmonary angiogram and cardiac echocardiogram.

PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention.

Table 4. Multivariable linear regression model results for the adherence score versus neonatal clinical variables.

Clinical variables Mean difference Adherence score (95% CI) Standardised Coefficients Beta P value n (%) N = 261
Preexistent cardiac group 2.357 (0.883, 3.832) 0.181 0.002 139 (53.2)
Prematurity +*NICU/SBCU3 2.063 (-0.226, 4.351) 0.115 0.077 42 (16.1)
Retrieval/ CPAP/ Ventilation -3.525 (-8.349, 1.299) -0.099 0.151 9 (3.4)
RDS required CPAP -3.021 (-6.891, 0.849) -0.126 0.125 21 (8)
Low Apgar Score<7 at 5 minutes 3.841 (-0.170, 7.852) 0.150 0.060 18 (6.9)
NICU Admission 4.966 (2.990, 6.943) 0.343 <0.001 73 ((28)
Sepsis workup/ sepsis -2.311 (-5.396, 0.773) -0.090 0.141 18 (6.9)
Diagnosis of Congenital Abnormalities 4.544 (0.010, 9.098) 0.121 0.050 8 (3.1)

Significance p value <0.2. All clinical variables were yes vs no.

*NICU: Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, SBCU3: Special Baby Care Unit Level 3

CPAP: mode of ventilation Continuous Positive Pressure ventilation

RDS: Respiratory Distress Syndrome + CPAP continuous positive airway pressure.

Table 5. Multivariable linear regression model results: Clinical variables versus adherence score of the clinical practice guidelines for South Australian pregnant women with cardiac conditions between 2003 and 2013.

Clinical variables Mean Difference in Adherence score (95% CI) Standardised Coefficients Beta P value Frequency
N = 261
Obstetric complications.
Preeclampsia (PET) 2.573 (0.199, 4.948) 0.117 0.034 25
Placenta Previa (PP) 4.900 (1.136, 8.663) 0.130 0.011 8
Modes of Delivery
Assisted vaginal delivery (VD) 1.631 (-0.593, 3.856) 0.076 0.150 27
LSCS (Elective) 5.197 (3.584, 6.811) 0.360 <0.001 74
Emergency LSCS 2.418 (0.529, 4.307) 0.151 0.012 54
*Deviation from planned delivery 1.104 (0.276, 2.485) 0.81 0.116 92
Neonatal complications.
Retrieval/ CPAP/ Ventilation -3.868 (-8.108, 0.372) -0.109 0.074 9
Prematurity +NICU/SBCU3 1.602 (-0.436, 3.641) 0.090 0.123 42
Respiratory Distress Syndrome required CPAP. 3.077 (-6.543, 0.381) -0.129 0.081 21
NICU admission 3.581 (1.822, 5.340) 0.247 <0.001 73
Low Apgar score <7 at 5minutes 2.939 (-0.628, 6.505) 0.115 0.106 18**
Covariates/Predictors Mean Difference in Adherence score (95% CI) Standardised Coefficients Beta P value Frequency
N = 261
Neonatal complications continued
Diagnosis of Congenital abnormalities 3.273 (-0.813, 7.360) 0.087 0.116 8
Septic workup /Sepsis -2.613 (-5.355, 0.128) -0.102 0.062 18
Cardiac complications /interventions.
Decompensated Heart failure (HF) 3.546 (1.689, 5.403) 0.199 <0.001 42
Required Cardiac Surgery 4.642 (0.199, 9.085) 0.107 0.041 6
Balloon Valvoplasty procedure 5.293 (-0.864, 11.450) 0.087 0.004 3
CTPA+ Echocardiogram -2.272 (-4.513, 0.031) -0.105 0.047 26
Other factors
    Pre-existent cardiac group 2.010 (0.643, 3.377) 0.154 0.004 139

Significance P < 0.2. All covariates /predictors were yes vs no. LSCS: lower segment

* Deviated from planned delivery mode, i.e., planned normal vaginal delivery but required alternative (listed) modes, or planned Elective but precipitously SVD or Emergency LSCS

** Missing data totals for 2 cases. CTPA+ Echocardiogram: CT pulmonary angiogram and cardiac echocardiogram.

Table 3. Multivariable linear regression model results for the adherence score versus obstetric clinical variables.

Clinical variables Mean difference Adherence score (95% CI) Standardized Coefficients Beta P value n (%) N = 261
Obstetric Complications
Preexistent cardiac group 1.957 (0.552, 3.362) 0.150 0.007 139 (53.2)
Pregnancy Induced Hypertension (PIH) 2.156 (-0.170, 4.482) 0.118 0.069 39 (14)
Preeclampsia (PET) 1.954 (-0.979, 4.887) 0.088 0.191 25 (9.6)
Placenta Previa (PP) 4.802 (-0.489,8.754) 0. 127 0.017 8 (3.1)
Threatened premature onset of Labour 2.015 (-0.131, 4.160) 0.099 0.066 30 (11.5)
Abnormal Intrauterine Growth restriction (IUGR) / Small for dates (SFD) 4.964 (1.366,8.561) 0.147 0.007 10 (3.8)
Modes of Delivery
Assisted vaginal delivery (VD) 1.946 (-0.427,4.319) 0.091 0.108 27 (10.3)
Lower segment Caesarean Section (LSCS) (Elective) 6.410 (4.733,8.087) 0.445 <0.001 74 (28)
Emergency LSCS 2.983 (0.003,1.025) 0.186 0.003 54 (20.7)
*Deviated from planned delivery mode 1.610 (-0.168, 3.052) 0.118 0.029 92 (35.2)

Significance p value <0.2. All clinical variables were yes vs no.

* Deviated from planned delivery mode; those women with planned NVD who required alternate listed modes or Elective LSCS was precipitous SVD or Emergency LSCS.

Results

Clinical characteristics

The cohort included 261 women of unmatched preexistent cardiac (n = 139) and acquired cardiac groups (n = 122). Updated baseline characteristics are reported in S4 Table. The mean adherence score in the preexistent cardiac group was 17.7 versus 15.2 in the acquired cardiac group. In the preexistent group, more women were from a rural location 30 (21.6%) and aboriginal ethnicity 21 (15%), compared with the acquired group 15 (12%) and 11 (9%). The descriptive frequencies of the categorical clinical variables for the overall cohort of women and the two cardiac groups are reported in Table 1.

Table 1. The descriptive statistics for clinical variables in the preexistent and acquired cardiac groups of women in South Australia during 2003 and 2013.

Cardiac clinical variables Combined Cardiac Groups n (%) N = 261 Preexisting cardiac (PEC) n (%) N = 139 Acquired cardiac (AC) n (%) N = 122
Maternal Cardiac Death 1 (0.4) 0 1 (0.8)
Cardiac Arrest 11 (4.2) 3 (2.2) 8 (6.6)
Decompensated Heart Failure 42 (16.1) 15 (10.8) 27 (22.1)
Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) 5 (1.9) 0 5 (4.1)
VHD/CHD diagnosis during pregnancy 63 (24.1) 48 (34.5) 15 (12.3)
Sustained Arrhythmias + Tx 78 (29.9) 21 (15.1) 57 (46.7)
Supraventricular Tachycardia (SVT) 73 (28.0) 19 (13.7) 54 (44.3)
Bradyarrhythmias without syncope and HF 12 (4.6) 1 (0.7) 11 (9.0)
Non-specific chest pain 52 (19.9) 18 (12.9) 34 (27.9)
Cardiovascular Implantable Electrical Device (CIED) 6 (2.3) 1 (0.7) 5 (4.1)
Cardiac surgery required 6 (2.3) 5 (3.6) 1 (0.8)
Balloon Valvoplasty required 3 (1.1) 2 (1.4) 1 (0.8)
Cardiogenic shock with Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP) 1 (0.4) 0 1 (0.8)
Need for invasive cardiac investigations.
EP studies ±Cardiac ablation 9 (3.4) 1 (0.7) 8 (6.6)
CTPA+ Echocardiogram investigations required 26 (10) 4 (2.9) 22 (18.0)
Coronary angiogram ± PCI 14 (5.4) 1 (0.7) 13 (10.7)
*Other Non-cardiac complications 16 (6.2) 12 (8.6) 4 (3.3)
Obstetric clinical variables Combined cardiac Groups n (%) Preexisting cardiac conditions (PEC) n (%) Acquired cardiac conditions (AC) n (%)
Modes of delivery
Normal vaginal delivery (NVD) 102 (39.1) 55 (39.6) 47 (38.5)
Assisted vaginal delivery (VD) 27 (10.3) 11 (7.9) 16 (13.1)
Elective Lower Segment Caesarean Section (LSCS) 74 (28.4) 49 (35.3) 25 (20.5)
Emergency LSCS 54 (20.7) 23 (16.5) 31 (25.4)
Emergency LSCS plus Hysterectomy 4 (1.5) 1 (0.7) 3 (2.5)
Deviated from planned mode of delivery 92 (35.2) 42 (30.2) 50 (41)
Obstetric clinical morbidities/ interventions
Failure to progress in labour (FTP) 28 (10.7) 13 (9.4) 15 (12.3)
Threatened premature labour (TPL) 30 (11.5) 16 (11.5) 14 (11.5)
Placenta Accreta 3 (1.1) 2 (1.4) 1 (0.8)
Placenta Praevia 8 (3.1) 3 (2.2) 5 (4.1)
Antepartum Haemorrhage (APH) 9 (3.4) 3 (2.2) 6 (4.9)
Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) 36 (13.8) 20 (14.4) 17 (13.1)
Pregnancy Induced Hypertension (PIH) 39 (14.9) 16 (11.5) 23 (18.9)
Preeclampsia (PET) 25 (9.6) 12 (8.6) 13 (10.7
Suspected Intrauterine Growth Restriction (IUGR) 10 (3.8) 8 (5.8) 2 (1.6)
Sepsis 15 (5.7) 6 (4.3) 9 (7.4)
Neonatal clinical variables Combined cardiac groups, n (%) Preexisting cardiac conditions (PEC), n (%) Acquired cardiac conditions (AC), n (%)
Alive and well 189 (72.4) 101 (72.7) 88 (72.1)
IUFD/stillbirth 1 (0.4) 0 1 (0.8)
TOP (Medical) 1 (0.4) 1 (0.7) 0
Prematurity 46 (17.6) 20 (14.4) 26 (21.3))
Prematurity + NICU/SBCU3 transfer 42 (16.1) 18 (12.9) 24 (19.7)
Active Resus +O2/BMV/Intubate/IPPV 34 (13) 19 (13.7) 15 (12.3)
Retrieval with CPAP ventilation 9 (3.4) 5 (3.6) 4 (3.3)
Active Resus low invasive 25 (9.6) 9 (6.5) 16 (13.1)
Septic workup/Sepsis 18 (6.9) 6 (4.3) 12 (9.8)
Respiratory Distress syndrome (RDS) 39 (14.9) 23 (16.5) 16 (13.1)
RDS required CPAP 21 (8.0) 13 (9.4) 8 (6.6)
§SFD clinical diagnosis 10 (3.8) 8 (5.8) 2 (1.6)
Diagnosis of Congenital Heart Disease (CHD) 6 (2.3) 5 (3.6) 1 (0.8)
Diagnosis of Non-cardiac Congenital Abnormalities 8 (3.1) 6 (4.3) 2 (1.6)
||Apgar Score < 7 at 1 min 35 (13.4) 17 (12.2) 19 (15.4)
||Apgar Score < 7 at 5 min 18 (6.9) 9 (6.5) 10 (8.0)
NICU admission 73 (28) 38 (27.3) 35 (28.7)
SBCU3 admission 29 (11.1) 12 (8.6) 17 (13.9)

VHD/CHD: Valvular Heart Disease or Congenital Heart Disease Diagnosis, HF: Heart failure, CIED: Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device, e.g. Pacemaker / implantable cardioverter defibrillator, Arrhythmias + TX: Sustained Arrhythmias requiring treatment, EP studies/Cardiac Ablation: Electrophysiology studies and Catheter Ablation, CTPA+ Echocardiogram: CT computed-tomography pulmonary angiogram, PCI percutaneous coronary intervention. NICU: Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, SBCU3: Special Baby Care Unit level 3, Active Resus+ O2/BMV/ intubate /IPPV: active resuscitation that required oxygen administration(O2), bag-mask ventilation (BMV) but also required intubation (intubate) and mechanical ventilation mode of intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV), CPAP: mode of mechanical ventilation Continuous positive pressure ventilation

*Other non-cardiac complications: hepatic encephalopathy and bleeding gastric varices, oesophageal sclerotherapy.

† Deviated from planned delivery mode: planned NVD required alternative (listed) mode of delivery or planned Elective LSCS was precipitous SVD or Emergency LSCS.

documented as “Alive and Well’ by clinicians at birth, IUFD: Intrauterine Foetal Death ≥ 20 weeks gestation, TOP: Medical Termination of pregnancy < 24 weeks.

§ Clinical Diagnosis of IUGR/SFD small for dates

||Missing data totals = ** 2, ***1(1& 5 min respectively).

Clinical morbidities, outcomes, and interventions

The primary clinical outcome of mortality was low for the cohort (n = 1). The only maternal death occurred in the acquired cardiac group and was associated with a low adherence score of eight. There were no neonatal deaths; however, one intrauterine death late in pregnancy occurred in the acquired cardiac group. One medical termination of pregnancy occurred in the first trimester due to severe mitral valve disease in the preexistent cardiac group.

Within the overall cohort, 11 women experienced a cardiac arrest, predominantly in the acquired cardiac group. Similarly, HF occurred in 42 cases (16%) and was more frequent in the acquired cardiac group (22%) n = 27, compared with the preexistent cardiac group (11%) n = 15. There were 78 (29%) cases of sustained arrhythmias requiring treatment in the overall cohort, with (28%) n = 73 SVT and mainly in the acquired cardiac group (44%) n = 54. Non-specific chest pain 34 (27%) was prevalent in the acquired group and included only 5 (4%) AMI incidents for the cohort. New diagnosis of CHD and VHD during pregnancy occurred more often in women with a preexistent cardiac condition (34%) in comparison to the acquired group (12%) (See Table 1). These women were diagnosed with different cardiac pathology such as VHD or CHD to their known heart disease during pregnancy. A modest number of cardiac interventions (n = 58, 22%) encompassed cardiac diagnostic investigations, i.e., CTPA with an echocardiogram to the more invasive balloon valvoplasty and cardiac surgery, mainly in the preexistent cardiac group (See Table 1).

Whilst there were 101 (39%) normal vaginal delivery, 92 women (35%) deviated from their planned birthing mode, particularly in the acquired cardiac group (41%) n = 50. The birthing options of elective (28%) n = 74 and emergency LSCS (20%) n = 54 were found to be more frequent than assisted vaginal delivery (10%), n = 27. Additional information on the frequencies of obstetric complications in the cohort is in Table 1.

There were 189 (72%) neonates born with normal Apgar scores (>7 at 1 and 5 minutes), while 34 (13%) babies required active resuscitation at birth, particularly in the preexistent cardiac group. The cohort included six sets of twins, one set of triplets, and all were admitted to NICU for prematurity. Seventy-three (28%) babies were admitted to NICU, and 29 babies (11%) transferred to SBCU3. Nine babies in the cohort required invasive respiratory support and retrieval. More neonates (n = 23; 16%) in the preexistent cardiac group experienced RDS, whilst 13 babies with RDS (9%) required respiratory support. A small number of babies (n = 6) were diagnosed with congenital heart disease and abnormalities, particularly in the preexistent cardiac group (See S2 Table).

The association between the guideline adherence score and clinical variables

The initial multivariable regression analysis results for the separate groups of clinical outcomes are presented in Tables 24. However, the final multivariable results for the association between guideline adherence score and clinical variables for the cohort are shown in Table 5. The cardiac variable of HF had the statistically most robust association with an improved guideline adherence score (p < 0.001). Women with HF had a mean guideline adherence score of 3.546 units higher than those who did not have heart failure (mean difference (unstandardised beta coefficient of linear regression equation) = 3.546, 95% CI: (1.689, 5.403). There was a statistically significant association between the adherence score and the following cardiac variables: women in the preexistent cardiac group (p = 0.004), those women who had balloon valvoplasty (p = 0.004), those who required cardiac surgery (p = 0.041), and the investigations of CTPA inclusive of an echocardiogram (p = 0.047), whilst adjusting for all other covariates in the multivariable model. There was no association with adherence score in women who experienced cardiac arrest in the final multivariable analysis.

Elective LSCS mode of delivery had the statistically most robust association with an improved guideline adherence score (p < 0.001). Those women who had an elective LSCS had a mean guideline adherence score 5.197 units more than those who did not (mean difference = 5.197, 95% CI: 3.584, 6.811). The statistically significant associations between the guideline adherence score and other obstetric variables were emergency LSCS (p = 0.0120), diagnosis of preeclampsia (p = 0.034) and placenta praevia complication (p = 0.011), whilst adjusting for all other covariates.

The only neonatal variable reporting a statistically significant association with the guideline adherence score was NICU admission adjusting for all covariates in the model (p <0.001). Those women with babies who went to NICU admission had a mean adherence score 3.581 units greater than those without babies in NICU admission (mean difference = 3.581, 95% CI: 1.822, 5.340). A small number of babies diagnosed with congenital cardiac conditions (n = 6) are included in NICU admission, with some requiring further paediatric care and follow up (refer to S2 Table).

Discussion

The study aimed to compare clinical outcomes against guideline recommendations to verify real-life practice and identify gaps for quality improvement measures. Particularly to describe the frequencies of clinical morbidities, outcomes and interventions in the cohort of women with cardiac conditions during pregnancy and determine their association with the adherence score. We found that the mortality and morbidity findings of this study were consistent with international research. Pregnancy in women with cardiac conditions is associated with significant morbidity, yet maternal cardiac mortality is reportedly rare (our cohort, n = 1) [28]. Our cohort reflected similar findings to the Cardiac Disease in Pregnancy II (CAREPREG II) study that cardiac complications in pregnant women with heart disease are more frequently maternal arrhythmias (30%) and heart failure (16%) (Table 1) [28]. This comprehensive retrospective study supports the hypothesis of an association between the adherence score to the guidelines and some clinical variables indicating improved outcomes with greater adherence (Table 2). But the most significant was decompensated heart failure (p < 0.001) and elective LSCS (p <0.001), contingent upon the inclusion of multidisciplinary team collaboration in high risk pregnancies [20].

One maternal cardiac death occurred post-partum. The mother presented to the hospital’s emergency department in septic shock due to infective endocarditis post-discharge, following the successful term delivery of a live baby six weeks earlier. She died during this admission despite intensive care treatment. On her initial hospital presentation, she arrived in established labour, was diagnosed, and treated for a urinary tract infection. She had not attended antenatal care and was a known current illicit drug user. Therefore, her adherence score was low. One IUFD occurred during the second trimester. The woman made a telephone enquiry about the absence of foetal movement, but she delayed presentation to the hospital where the diagnosis of IUFD was made. These findings underscore the importance of factors such as nonattendance to antenatal care, non-compliance plus medical error in a known intravenous illicit drug user, late presentation to the hospital resulting in missed care, and low guideline adherence score described elsewhere [20].

Cardiac arrests during pregnancy frequently lead to mortalities and severe maternal morbidities [40, 41]. No reported mortality associated with the cardiac arrests occurred in this cohort, but one woman experienced severe maternal morbidities following a post-partum cardiac arrest (S8 Table). The woman’s medical history was multiparity, chronic hypertension, GDM, high BMI, and antepartum diagnosis of Left Bundle Branch Block (LBBB) on ECG. Also, late confirmation of global left ventricular dysfunction consistent with a dilated cardiomyopathy on echocardiogram. This woman repeatedly presented to the emergency departments at different hospitals with chest pain complaints, dysponea and tachycardia. However, the diagnostic echocardiogram occurred following her admission and post-partum cardiac review. Initially, the woman was not on cardiac telemetry and was discovered unresponsive and in cardiac arrest for an unknown period by a medical officer. Following resuscitation, she required prolonged intensive care and hospital admission complicated by a secondary PPH and hypoxic brain injury. She received treatment for her cardiomyopathy, including CIED insertion and tracheostomy for long term respiratory support. Unfortunately, over time neurological recovery was insufficient; therefore, she was discharged to long term residential care [41]. This cardiac arrest may have been prevented if medical staff had promptly adhered to guidelines so that appropriate treatment could be offered for this life-threatening cardiac condition.

The strength of the linear association between the cardiac groups and adherence to the guidelines was more significant in the preexistent cardiac group (global p value = 0.004) compared to the acquired cardiac group reiterating previous findings [20]. Women in the preexistent group had a mean adherence score of 2.010 units greater than those in the acquired cardiac group (mean difference = 2.010, 95% CI: 0.643, 3.374). The guidelines’ efficacy and effectiveness were apparent when explanatory clinical variables were more strongly associated with higher adherence score and positive clinical outcomes [20]. Pregnant women with preexistent cardiac conditions, e.g. Tetralogy of Fallot (TOF), where multidisciplinary team management and a documented plan pertinent to the guidelines were in place, despite antepartum cardiac events typically experienced a good clinical course [20].

Women with pregnancy-acquired cardiac complications or congenital heart disease unmasked during pregnancy had a lower adherence score due to the change in their care trajectory during the antepartum period and experienced morbidities (See S1 Table). The lack of routine prenatal health (including cardiac) screening, preterm delivery, and late diagnosis in pregnancy contributed to a lack of awareness and preparedness previously reported [20, 42]. Clinicians were surprised and unprepared for potential cardiac complications in pregnancy if asymptomatic women in the first trimester later experienced sudden clinical deterioration. A study from Turkey demonstrated a 5.2% prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among asymptomatic first trimester women in a tertiary obstetric centre. This emphasises the importance of opportunistic as well as routine health and CVD screening by general practitioners in all patients whatever their age, and for newly pregnant women at their first antepartum visit [42]. Prenatal screening includes obtaining the pregnant woman’s medical history and family members’ medical history, cardiac status, and associated risk factors [20]. The authors recommend that skilled medical staff review the cardiovascular status of pregnant women with associated risk factors, i.e. indigenous and refugee population for RHD, family cardiac history and known illicit drug user.

More women experienced sustained arrhythmias requiring treatment (30%) and decompensated heart failure (16%) in the acquired cardiac group compared to the preexistent cardiac group. Notably, in the final multivariable model, those pregnant women diagnosed with HF were associated with improved adherence to the perinatal guidelines reflected in the increased adherence score (global p <0.001). The clinicians’ awareness of previous cardiomyopathies, early symptomatic onset in the antepartum period, and acute post-partum events, prompted adherence to the guidelines [15, 43, 44]. Antepartum HF was more likely to increase the adherence score as clinicians sought specific guideline recommendations to manage the heart failure appropriately during pregnancy [20]. With careful monitoring of volaemic status during pregnancy described in the perinatal guidelines, the heart failure regime ensured clinicians’ ‘preparedness’ [33].

Modes of delivery

The modes of delivery are an essential consideration for women with cardiac conditions to mitigate cardiovascular stress during the active phase of labour and yielded surprising results in this study. Although spontaneous or assisted vaginal delivery is preferred according to perinatal guidelines, the elective LSCS mode of delivery showed a statistically significant association with increased adherence to the guidelines adjusting for all other covariates with p value<0.001. This association demonstrates a consensus on the obstetric rationales for LSCS in women with cardiac conditions, medical conditions, and prior pregnancy complications who are more likely to experience obstetric and neonatal complications [1419].

Women identified with adverse pregnancy outcomes such as malpresentation, premature onset of labour, multiple births, or clinical deterioration prompted elective LSCS to ensure the best result for mother and baby. As expected, the cardiac scenarios resulting in a decision for emergency or elective LSCS for solely cardiac indications were small (n = 20, 7.6%). Likewise, the rationale for elective LSCS included common obstetrical complications i.e., repeat LSCS (28%) placental dysfunction, i.e., placenta praevia and accreta (6%), pregnancy-induced hypertension, preeclampsia, and eclampsia (18%), delivery related, i.e., fail to progress (10%), malpresentation (2%) and baby-related indications such as compromised foetal wellbeing (4.9%) (S9 Table).

To understand these results, from a clinical perspective, elective LSCS occurred predominantly in the preexistent group (35%); clinicians had a low tolerance for significant obstetric complications. Often multiple adverse pregnancy complications influenced clinicians’ decision to proceed with the surgical option of delivery. Women with significant preexistent cardiac conditions such as severe mitral valve disease and pulmonary hypertension, worsening decompensated heart failure and severe heart failure (NYHA classification IV) prompted early admission to hospital for cardiac optimisation. This included advanced life support in cardiac arrest, diuresis in decompensated heart failure, and respiratory support to manage hypoxia. Likewise, women required inotropic support for cardiogenic shock, haemodynamic monitoring during and immediately after delivery and management of cardiac arrhythmias with anti-arrhythmic medication, Direct Current (DC) cardioversion or implantation of an internal cardiac electrical device.

The rationale for elective LSCS included common obstetrical indications like placenta praevia, preeclampsia, or compromised foetal wellbeing. In our cohort, the high rate of elective LSCS (although not considered the first option in the statewide guidelines) increased guideline adherence scores related to other aspects of the guidelines yet improved the overall clinical outcome for both mother and baby. Early inclusion of multidisciplinary team for surgical delivery options facilitated the uptake of guidelines recommendations such as assessing cardiac status. Therefore the results support the safety of elective LSCS in severe and unstable cardiac conditions. Emergency LSCS was more prevalent in the acquired cardiac group (25%) for obstetric reasons; however, emergency LSCS precipitated by cardiac events mid-trimester had low adherence score and poorer outcomes.

Admission to NICU was the only significant neonatal variable associated with increased adherence to guidelines. P <0.001 indicating an appropriate response for the newborns’ care in this cohort.

There were women with cardiac conditions who experienced unexpected non-cardiac complications during pregnancy. Two examples include intracranial bleeding treated with craniotomy and tumour in the distal trachea treated post-delivery with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for thoracotomy and debulking of tumour and insertion of a tracheal stent. All ‘other’ complications were included in the analysis; however, although clinically meaningful, none were significant.

Conclusion

This study reassures clinicians that women in the preexistent cardiac group who had greater adherence to the perinatal guidelines achieved better clinical outcomes for both mother and baby, yet this did not guarantee an uneventful pregnancy journey. This result is encouraging despite the lack of Level 1A recommendations within these guidelines. There is insufficient robust published scientific and clinical evidence in this area of obstetric medicine. However, clinicians’ awareness and preparedness of the women’s preexisting cardiac conditions and the appropriate care process in the guidelines helped them anticipate potential pregnancy complications and prepare for interventions [20]. Likewise, pregnant women’s health literacy has a significant role in guideline adherence; therefore, their cardiac conditions’ health education is vital. In women with acquired cardiac conditions during pregnancy, often earlier pre-emptive warning ‘signs’ are insufficient. Therefore, adherence to cardiac disease guidelines begins at the cardiac event timeframe, resulting in a lower score. However, if the health care team and mother can rapidly readjust the care trajectory according to the guidelines, they may avoid severe complications. Therefore, adherence to the guidelines by both the pregnant women and the healthcare team improves clinical outcomes and provides clinicians with an opportunity for early diagnosis and interventions, mitigating potentially serious complications.

Limitations

This study did not reflect state or national population proportions of women with cardiac conditions in pregnancy and encountered the anticipated limitations with retrospective medical record reviews, such as missing data and inaccurate documentation. The researcher examined individual case notes for additional documented evidence to confirm the care provided.

Generalizability

The data collected was limited to South Australia Health public hospitals due to access and data availability from medical records. Therefore, the sample size and findings do not reflect all women in South Australia.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Cardiac diagnosis.

(PDF)

S2 Table. Neonatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease and abnormalities.

(PDF)

S3 Table. Coding of clinical interventions, complications, and outcomes for SPSS variables for obstetric, neonatal and maternal cardiac.

(PDF)

S4 Table. Baseline characteristics for the cohort.

(PDF)

S5 Table. Univariate linear regression model results for adherence score versus obstetric clinical variables, neonatal clinical variables and maternal cardiac variables.

(PDF)

S6 Table. Univariate linear regression model results for adherence score versus obstetric clinical variables, neonatal clinical variables and maternal cardiac variables.

(PDF)

S7 Table. Univariate linear regression model results for adherence score versus obstetric clinical variables, neonatal clinical variables and maternal cardiac variables.

(PDF)

S8 Table. Cardiac arrests cases, associated pathologies and outcomes.

(PDF)

S9 Table. Cardiac, obstetric and other indications for emergency and elective lower segment caesarean section.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the invaluable support of the three sites’ medical records departments.

Sandra Millington acknowledges support through an Australian Government Research Training Program scholarship. Robyn Clark acknowledges support through the Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship (APP100847).

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.van Hagen IM, Boersma E, Johnson MR, Thorne SA, Parsonage WA, Escribano Subías P, et al. Global cardiac risk assessment in the Registry Of Pregnancy And Cardiac disease: results of a registry from the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18(5):523–33. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.501 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Baris L, Roos-Hesselink JW. The Critically Ill Pregnant ACHD Patient. In: da Cruz E, Macrae D, Webb G, editors. Intensive Care of the Adult with Congenital Heart Disease. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 337–58. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-94171-4_18 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Roos-Hesselink J, Baris L, Johnson M, De Backer J, Otto C, Marelli A, et al. Pregnancy outcomes in women with cardiovascular disease: evolving trends over 10 years in the ESC Registry Of Pregnancy And Cardiac disease (ROPAC). Eur Heart J. 2019. 00, 1–8. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz136 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Grandi SM, Filion KB, Yoon S, Ayele HT, Doyle CM, Hutcheon JA, et al. Cardiovascular Disease-Related Morbidity and Mortality in Women With a History of Pregnancy Complications. Circulation. 2019;139(8):1069–79. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.036748 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Sullivan E, Cordina R, Simmons L, Peek M, Clarke DM, Celermajer D et al. AMOSS Prospective Longitudinal study for Cardiac Disease in Pregnancy 2020. Accessed Url 17/12/2020 https://www.amoss.com.au/studies [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Parsonage WA, Zentner D, Lust K, Kane SC, Sullivan EA. Heart Disease and Pregnancy: The Need for a Twenty-First Century Approach to Care. Heart, Lung and Circulation. 2021;30(1):45–51. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2020.06.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Welfare AIoH. Maternal deaths in Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health Welfare, 2019. Accessed 24/92020 Url: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mothers-babies/maternal-deaths-in-australia/contents/maternal-deaths-in-australia.
  • 8.D’Souza RD, Silversides CK, Tomlinson GA, Siu SC. Assessing Cardiac Risk in Pregnant Women With Heart Disease: How Risk Scores Are Created and Their Role in Clinical Practice. Can J Cardiol. 2020;36(7):1011–21. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2020.02.079 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hall ME, George EM, Granger JP. The Heart During Pregnancy. Rev Esp Cardio (Engl Ed) 2011;64(11):1045–50. doi: 10.1016/j.recesp.2011.07.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Millington S, Magarey J, Dekker GA, Clark RA. Cardiac conditions in pregnancy and the role of midwives: A discussion paper. Nursing Open. 2019, 00: 1–11. doi: 10.1002/nop2.269 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Johns JDM FRACP, FCSANZ Cardiologist and Medical Director. Cardiac disease O&G magazine 2013;15(1 Autumn): 30–2. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bick D, Beake S, Chappell L, Ismail KM, McCance DR, Green JSA, et al. Management of pregnant and postnatal women with pre-existing diabetes or cardiac disease using multi-disciplinary team models of care: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:428. doi: 10.1186/s12884-014-0428-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Park K, Minissian MB, Wei J, Saade GR, Smith GN. Contemporary clinical updates on the prevention of future cardiovascular disease in women who experience adverse pregnancy outcomes. Clin Cardiol. 2020;43(6):553–9. doi: 10.1002/clc.23374 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Siu SC, Colman JM, Sorensen S, Smallhorn JF, Farine D, Amankwah KS, et al. Adverse neonatal and cardiac outcomes are more common in pregnant women with cardiac disease. Circ. 2002;105(18):2179–84. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.0000015699.48605.08 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ruys TPE, Roos-Hesselink JW, Hall R, Subirana-Domènech MT, Grando-Ting J, Estensen M, et al. Heart failure in pregnant women with cardiac disease: data from the ROPAC. Heart. 2014;100(3):231–8. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2013-304888 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Drenthen W, Yap SC, van Veldhuisen DJ, Pieper PG, Boersma E, Balci A, et al. Predictors of pregnancy complications in women with congenital heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2010;31(17):2124–32. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.van Hagen IM, Roos-Hesselink JW, Donvito V, Liptai C, Morissens M, Murphy DJ, et al. Incidence and predictors of obstetric and fetal complications in women with structural heart disease. Heart. 2017;103(20):1610–1618. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2016-310644 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Pieper PG, Balci A, Aarnoudse JG, Kampman MAM, Sollie KM, Groen H, et al. Uteroplacental blood flow, cardiac function, and pregnancy outcome in women with congenital heart disease. Circ. 2013;128(23):2478–2487. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.002810 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Wald RM, Silversides CK, Kingdom J, Toi A, Lau CS, Mason J, et al. Maternal Cardiac Output and Fetal Doppler Predict Adverse Neonatal Outcomes in Pregnant Women With Heart Disease. J Am Heart Assoc. 2015;4(11):e002414. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.115.002414 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Millington S, Arstall M, Dekker G, Magarey J, Clark R. Adherence to clinical practice guidelines for South Australian pregnant women with cardiac conditions between 2003 and 2013. PloS one. 2020;15(3):e0230459–e. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230459 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Regitz-Zagrosek V, Roos-Hesselink JW, Bauersachs J, Blomström-Lundqvist C, Cífková R, De Bonis M, et al. 2018 ESC Guidelines for the management of cardiovascular diseases during pregnancy. Eur Heart J. 2018;39(34):3165–3241. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy340 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Florio K, Daming T, Grodzinsky A. Poorly Understood Maternal Risks of Pregnancy in Women With Heart Disease. Circ. 2018;137(8):766–768. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.031889 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Main EK, Cape V, Abreo A, Vasher J, Woods A, Carpenter A, et al. Reduction of severe maternal morbidity from hemorrhage using a state perinatal quality collaborative. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(3):298.e1–.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.01.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Frydrychowicz A, Landgraf B, Wieben O, François CJ. Scimitar Syndrome. Circ. 2010;121(23):e434–e6. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.931857 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ribeiro B, Igreja J, Gonçalves-Rocha M, Cadilhe A. Goldenhar syndrome: a rare diagnosis with possible prenatal findings. BMJ Case Reports. 2016;2016: bcr2016215258. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2016-215258 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hinton RB GP, Godby RC, Parrott A, Shikany AG, Landis BJ, Jame JF, Miller EM and Ware SM Left Ventricular Noncompaction in Noonan Syndrome. J Genet Disor Genet Report 2016;5(2). doi: 10.4172/2327-5790.1000134, [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Van den Broeck J ACS, Eeckels R, Herbest K. Data Cleaning: Detecting, Diagnosing, and Editing Data Abnormalities. PloS Med. 2005. 2. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020267 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Silversides CK, Grewal J, Mason J, Sermer M, Kiess M, Rychel V, et al. Pregnancy Outcomes in Women With Heart Disease: The CARPREG II Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(21):2419–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.02.076 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hayward RM, Foster E, Tseng ZH. Maternal and Fetal Outcomes of Admission for Delivery in Women With Congenital Heart Disease. JAMA Cardiology. 2017;2 (6):664–671. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2017.0283 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hagen IMv, Boersma E, Johnson MR, Thorne SA, Parsonage WA, Subías PE, et al. Global cardiac risk assessment in the Registry Of Pregnancy And Cardiac disease: results of a registry from the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18(5):523–533. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.501 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Elkayam U, Jalnapurkar S, Barakkat MN, Khatri N, Kealey AJ, Mehra A, et al. Pregnancy-Associated Acute Myocardial Infarction. A Review of Contemporary Experience in 150 Cases Between 2006 and 2011. Circ.2014;129(16):1695–702. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.002054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Roos-Hesselink JW, Ruys TPE, Stein JI, Thilén U, Webb GD, Niwa K, et al. Outcome of pregnancy in patients with structural or ischaemic heart disease: results of a registry of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2012;34(9):657–65. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs270 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Network SMaNC. Clinical Guideline Cardiac disease in pregnancy In Committee SHSQSG, editor. Version 3.0 ed: Department for Health and Aging, Government of South Australia; 2014. p. 1–35. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Cauldwell M, Cox M, Gatzoulis M, Nelson-Piercy C, O’Brien P, Roos-Hesselink JW, et al. The management of labour in women with cardiac disease: the need for more evidence? BJOG: 2017;124(9):1307–9. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14547 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Siu SC, Marcotte F, Taylor DA, Gordon EP, Spears JC, Tam JW, et al. Prospective multicenter study of pregnancy outcomes in women with heart disease. Circ. 2001;104(5):515–521. doi: 10.1161/hc3001.093437 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Pillutla P, Nguyen T, Markovic D, Canobbio M, Koos BJ, Aboulhosn JA. Cardiovascular and Neonatal Outcomes in Pregnant Women With High-Risk Congenital Heart Disease. Am J Cardiol. 2016;117(10):1672–7. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.02.045 Epub 2016 Mar 2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Yadav V, Sharma JB, Mishra S, Kriplani A, Bhatla N, Kachhawa G, et al. Maternal and fetal outcome in operated vs non-operated cases of congenital heart disease cases in pregnancy. Indian Heart J. 2018;70(1):82–86. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2017.10.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Harrell FE. Multivariable Modeling Strategies. In: Harrell JFE, editor. Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic and Ordinal Regression, and Survival Analysis. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 63–102. doi: 10.18637/jss.v070.b02 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Heinze G, Dunkler D. Five myths about variable selection. Transplant Int. 2017; 30(1):6–10. doi: 10.1111/tri.12895 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Jeejeebhoy Farida M, Zelop Carolyn M, Lipman S, Carvalho B, Joglar J, Mhyre Jill M, et al. Cardiac Arrest in Pregnancy. Circ. 2015; 132(18):1747–73. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000300 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Jentzer Jacob C, van Diepen S, Henry Timothy D. Understanding How Cardiac Arrest Complicates the Analysis of Clinical Trials of Cardiogenic Shock. Circ: Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020; 13(9):e006692. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.120.006692 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Bozkaya VÖ, Oskovi Kaplan ZA, Özgü E, Engin Ustun Y. Screening and evaluation of newly diagnosed cardiovascular diseases in first-trimester asymptomatic pregnant women in a tertiary antenatal care center in Turkey. Anatol J Cardiol. 2020; 23(2):99–104. doi: 10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2019.55267 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Jayasooriya G, Silversides C, Raghavan G, Balki M. Anesthetic management of women with heart failure during pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2020;44:40–50. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2020.06.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Mogos Mulubrhan F, Piano Mariann R, McFarlin Barbara L, Salemi Jason L, Liese Kylea L, Briller Joan E. Heart Failure in Pregnant Women. Circ: Heart Fail. 2018;11(1):e004005. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.117.004005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Sara Ornaghi

5 May 2021

PONE-D-21-08006

The association between guidelines adherence and clinical outcomes during pregnancy in a cohort of women with cardiac co-morbidities.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Millington,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 19 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sara Ornaghi, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

  1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In my opinion, this is an interesting article because heart disease in pregnancy is an area of little available evidence. Currently, it has a lot of relevance since it is becoming a significant cause of maternal morbidity and mortality in both developed and developing countries. Despite this relevance and international guidelines that highlight the subject, most of the topics are recommendations made by experts who have little available evidence.

This type of study helps to support the recommendations of the guidelines. It is especially relevant to highlight the role of multidisciplinary groups, the early detection of heart disease in pregnant women, and the timely direction to the best care centers where it is possible to have a better follow-up of the guidelines.

Also, it is interesting to see that some pathologies, in particular, alert the health team, and they allow improving the standards of care. But, it is also a challenge to bring these levels of adherence to all patients, even when the diseases do not seem to be so complex.

This kind of article shows the work to be done and can raise awareness to achieve better results.

However, I consider it pertinent to review the following aspects:

1. To understand this article better, it is necessary to thoroughly review the study where the authors evaluated adherence to the guidelines. However, It could be helpful to add a brief description of the design aspects and the previous publication to permit the readers to inquire about the topic.

2. I consider it is essential to highlight the difference between the three hospitals mentioned.

3. Although maternal mortality was very low, the number of patients who presented with cardiac arrest was significant, so it would be relevant to report which were the pathologies that were associated with cardiac arrest in the description of outcomes (it could be a table)

4. Cesarean section deliveries were very high. It would be interesting to know the indication for cesarean section (cardiac vs obstetric) since most heart diseases can end by vaginal delivery, leaving a cesarean section for a cardiac indication to very selected cases.

It would be essential to know more characteristics that help define why the high rate of cesarean sections. The authors mention that state practices do not suggest elective cesarean section as the first option (and neither do the other pregnancy and heart disease guidelines) but, they recommend that this enhanced the results for both: mother and baby. So, it is essential to know in which scenarios the cesarean section was performed because if it was in severe and unstable conditions it would be justified.

5. 30-40% of patients had deviation in the delivery plan. As far as possible, given the retrospective nature, it would be good to know why the change occurred (change in the clinical condition that caused an indicated change or preference of the treating physician), as this has implications for quality of care and the impact of the concept of the multidisciplinary group.

6. The acronyms should be reviewed as some do not correspond or are not referenced before their use.

Reviewer #2: This was a sub-study of a retrospective cross sectional observational audit of 261 women that evaluated adherence to clinical practice guidelines for South Australian pregnant women between 2003-2012 previously published in PloS one in 2020. Although an interesting topic, it was difficult to understand the exact aims and hypothesis of this specific paper. Due to my confusion with the aims of this current paper, I reviewed the original submission which was clinically very useful as it looked at the assessment and the relationship to outcome as well as barriers to care. Although the results were reported as adherence versus non-adherence the tables and methods did not really reflect this.

Results were reported for two groups: Those with pre-existent cardiac issues and those with acquired cardiac issues. Table 1 shows multiple frequencies of cardiac outcomes, multiple obstetric clinical outcomes, and multiple neonatal clinical outcomes for the two different cardiac groups and the two groups combined. I believe the hypothesis was the association between adherence to guidelines and outcomes, but if that was the case it would be important to truly show characteristics between the adherent and non-adherent groups prior to showing the regression.

Multiple clinical outcomes were presented: Cardiac variables, obstetric variables and neonatal variables.

Specific questions include:

1) Was there data on congenital neonatal conditions, in particular neonatal heart disease and how did that relate to the outcomes?

2) What was included in the multivariate model?

3) Was there a power analysis done for the outcomes of interest, many were rare events

4) Most of the presentation of results seems to be a comparison of the outcomes in the preexistant versus

Reviewer #3: SUMMARY

Pregnant women with cardiac conditions are at increased risk of maternal, obstetric and neonatal complications. The two broad categories of cardiac conditions in pregnancy are preexistent heart disorders and pregnancy-acquired cardiac conditions.

In both South Australia and Western Australia, statewide guidelines integrate all levels of evidence to aspire to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity.

The same research group demonstrated in 2020 (1) that the adherence to the statewide guidelines developed and available in South Australia since 2010 is suboptimal across three SA Health public metropolitan, university-affiliated hospitals and variance in the level of adherence across the three hospitals correlated with the exposure to higher acuity cases.

Aim of the present sub-study is to describe the frequency of clinical morbidities, outcomes, and interventions in the preexistent and acquired cardiac groups of women with cardiac conditions during pregnancy and to determine the association between the adherence score to the guidelines and clinical variables.

Clinical outcome variables are divided in cardiac, obstetric and neonatal.

Descriptive frequencies of the categorical clinical variables for the overall cohort of women and

the two cardiac groups are reported.

Primary cardiac outcomes (maternal cardiac death, cardiac arrest, decompensated heart failure (HF) and acute pulmonary oedema, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and a new diagnosis of valvular heart disease (VHD) or congenital heart disease (CHD) diagnosis during pregnancy) were more frequent in acquired cardiac group except for diagnosis of additional cardiac pathologies such as VHD or CHD during pregnancy.

On the contrary neonatal morbidities and outcomes were more frequent in the preexistent cardiac group.

In the multivariable model statistically significant association has been found between the adherence score and the following cardiac variables: the stronger association was with women with heart failure, than women in the preexistent cardiac group (p = 0.004), those women who had balloon valvoplasty (p = 0.004), those who required cardiac surgery (p = 0.041), and the investigations of CTPA inclusive of an echocardiogram (p = 0.047), whilst adjusting for all other covariates. No association with cardiac arrest.

Among obstetric variables elective LSCS mode of delivery had the statistically most robust association with an improved guideline adherence score (p < 0.001). Other associated obstetric variables were emergency LSCS (p = 0.0120), diagnosis of preeclampsia (p = 0.034) and placenta praevia complication (p = 0.011).

The only neonatal variable reporting a statistically significant association with the guideline

adherence score was NICU admission.

The study is very interesting for many reasons: first of all because cardiac pathology during pregnancy is a challenging field of increasing interest with few data and evidence reported in literature. The present study is well done and well argued nevertheless there are several points that deserve to be clarified.

MINOR ISSUES

1. In Discussion is enphasized that the association between the adherence score to the guidelines and several clinical variables indicate improved outcomes with greater adherence (line 315), but this statement must be better argued. It is implied that the outcomes are improved with greater GL adherence because the group of newly diagnosed women has a lower adherence to the guidelines and worse outcomes but it needs to be explained.

2. Since to be aware of the presence of heart disease and follow GL antenatal care is critical to evitate worse complications (ie maternal cardiac death, severe morbidity after cardiac arrest, Discussion line 319-346) is there any parameter in the score that can increase the sensitivity of the diagnosis of heart disease in the first trimester? Can you specify if are there GL indications on routine CV screening and if are considered in your score? (Discussion lines 359-369)

3. Discussion lines 389-397 needs to be clarified: The elective LSCS mode of delivery showed a statistically significant association with increased adherence to the guidelines. The rationale for elective LSCS included common obstetrical indications but it prompted early admission to hospital for cardiac optimisation In our cohort, the high rate of elective LSCS (although not considered the first option in thestatewide guidelines) but with increased guideline adherence scores related to other aspects of the guidelines yet improved the overall clinical outcome for both mother and baby. This result supports the safety of elective LSCS in severe and unstable cardiac conditions. What unstable cardiac conditions? What kind of cardiac optimization is done ?

4. In Methods (line131-134) needs to be clarified how is calculated “the total adherence score”, unless reporting table of the previous study, at least by mentioning the criteria by which it is computed. Moreover the sentence “The researchers agreed on the minimum acceptable score of 17 for the newly acquired cardiac group and 35 for the preexistent cardiac group”. Needs to be better explained.

5. In results when it comes to mean guideline adherence score for groups of patients is not clear how it is calculated (e.g at lines 284-285: Women with HF had a mean guideline adherence score of 3.546 units higher than those who did not (mean difference =3.546, 95% CI, (1.689, 5.403)).

REF

(1) Millington S, Arstall M, Dekker G, Magarey J, Clark R. Adherence to clinical practice guidelines for South Australian pregnant women with cardiac conditions between 2003 and 2013. PloS one. 2020;15(3)

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Edison Muñoz Ortiz

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 23;16(7):e0255070. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255070.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Jun 2021

Reviewer #1

1. All statistics were performed under the supervision of a medical statistician who is also a co-author (Suzanne Edwards). The description of the model building completed in this paper is considered to be appropriate and rigorous based on Heinze and Dunkler 2017.

2. We have included a summary of our previous findings in the paper's introduction. We have not re-iterated the methods section of our last article as this is repetitive but referred to it. Therefore, like papers that have previously published their protocol and do not repeat the same information in the results paper. We hope this is satisfactory.

Refer to pages 6-7, lines 119-132 of the clean copy of the manuscript.

3. The authors thank the reviewer for comments regarding the difference between the three hospitals.

The authors agree that the difference between the three hospitals is important and was described in the previous publication. But this paper singular narrative aims to describe the frequencies of clinical variables, i.e. morbidities, outcomes and interventions inclusive of the cardiac groups of the women during pregnancy and their association with adherence scores. Therefore, the three hospitals were not included in the analysis for the following reasons.

• The three tertiary hospitals identified in the study were in the same metropolitan city with access to the same recommended statewide perinatal guidelines for practice.

• The differences in real-life practice between the three hospitals were addressed in the 2020 publication; please refer to Millington SK et al. 2020 (20). The findings showed that across three SA Health public metropolitan, university-affiliated hospitals, the variance in adherence across the three hospitals correlated with the exposure to higher acuity cases.

• As outlined in the same publication, there was cooperation between the three sites for interhospital transfer in high-risk cases.

• Given the number of women in the cohort and the fact that the numbers were not equally matched for each hospital site, reducing the power to analyse, it was more feasible to look at the overall score for adherence in linear regression modelling and cardiac groups.

• The disparities between the hospitals were not the aim of this paper and were highlighted in the previous publication. Refer to Page 6-7, lines 121 -132 clean copy of manuscript.

4. The authors thank the reviewer for requesting the description of outcomes and associated pathologies with the eleven cardiac arrest cases presented in Table VIII. This may be appropriate to include as a supplementary. Refer to Supplementary table VIII Cardiac Arrest cases, associated pathologies and outcomes.

5. Although the reviewer is concerned about the high percentage of LCSC rate in our cohort, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare indicates that the LCSC rate for women giving birth for the first time from 2004 to 2018 in South Australia was 29.5% and overall in Australia was 30.1%. (https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/per/095/ncmi-data-visualisations/contents/labour-birth/b5). The elective LCSC rate in our cohort of 261 was n= 74, 28.4%; however emergency LCSC rate was n=54, (20.7 %,) making our LCSC rate 49.1%. Solely cardiac indications for LCSC occurred in 20 women (7.6%), whereas obstetric or combined obstetric and cardiac indications occurred in the others. We found that the rationale for LCSC was frequently complex, and the decision was not based on a single parameter. This level of clinical complexity has been noted by previous registries (CAREPREG and ROPAC).

In the CAREPREG study cohort of 546 women who completed pregnancies, 98% were live births, with 164 deliveries by caesarean section Most caesarean deliveries (96%) were for obstetric indications; maternal cardiac status was indicated in 4% as reported in Siu et al. 2001.

The ROPAC study with a focus on structural heart disease described two cohorts :

PREG 1 cohort of 1,321 data collected before 2011 with reported LSCS 2,681 (46.7%) and emergency LSCS 766 (13.3%).

PREG 2 cohort of 5,739 data collected from 2011 onwards with reported LSCS 2143(48.6%) and emergency LSCS 562 (12.7%).

Finally, in our cohort, the cardiac scenarios resulting in a decision for elective or emergency LCSC were (n=20) and those women who deviated from the delivery plan (n=13)

Valve disease with preeclampsia n=2

Valve disease with decompensated heart failure n=3

Stable but severe stenotic valve disease n=1

Dilated cardiomyopathy resulting is severe pulmonary hypertension and/or decompensated heart failure n=5

Worsening primary pulmonary hypertension with heart failure n=1

Marfans’ syndrome with significant aortic root dilatation n=3

Type B aortic dissection antepartum n=1

Complex congenital heart disease with preeclampsia n=1

cardiac arrest n=3

acute pulmonary oedema of unclear cause n=1

In general, the deviation of the plan from NVD to LCSC was related to a change in the clinical state with haemodynamic compromise or a new serious complication (cardiac, obstetric, neonatal or other medical reasons). We have categorised the indications for LCSC in Table IX, which may be an appropriate supplementary table.

6. We have included the number and reasons for deviation from the planned NVD to LCSC in supplementary table IX, so this should answer the reviewer's query.

7. The authors thank the reviewers for the feedback on acronyms. The manuscript has been checked for inconsistencies with abbreviations where they are not referenced before their use. Refer to page 5, lines 93, page 10 line 218, page 26, line 368, page 31 , line 488 and table 1 and supplementary tables have been updated.

Reviewer # 2

1. The authors thank the reviewer for their feedback on congenital neonatal conditions, particularly neonatal heart disease, and outcomes. The primary and secondary outcomes of neonatal mortality and morbidity are discussed earlier in the manuscript. Please refer to page 10.

"Preexistent maternal heart disease, possibly via a decline in maternal cardiac output during pregnancy (IUGR) and obstetric complications, are associated with an increased risk of neonatal complications (14, 19). Therefore, this study collected data for neonatal complications…."

A small number (n=6) of neonates with congenital conditions diagnosed at birth or post-delivery did not influence overall adherence. All the babies survived, with some requiring further paediatric care and follow up, but the only neonatal variable with statistically significant association with guideline adherence score was NICU admission (P <0.001). Therefore, this data includes a small number of babies (n=6) diagnosed with congenital heart disease and abnormalities. Please refer to supplementary table S II on the neonatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease and abnormalities captured in the cohort with maternal cardiac status. The timing of the babies diagnosis occurred is made explicit for readers.

2. The authors thank the reviewers for feedback on what variables were included in the multivariable model. The manuscript outlined the statistical process in the manuscript with both univariate supplementary tables for transparency of the process see tables SV-SVII. In addition, the initial multivariable regression analysis for the separate cardiac, obstetric, and neonatal models are now presented in the results section table 2-4. However, the manuscript has been revised to improve clarity. Refer to pages 11-12 lines 243-250 and tables 2-4 in the clean manuscript.

3. The authors thank the reviewers for feedback on the power analysis for outcomes of interest, given that many were rare events. The sample size calculation and power calculation was performed and reported in a previous publication based on adherence to guidelines, which is the primary research topic (20). Therefore sample size and power calculations are based on the primary hypothesis as reported in the previous paper. Clinical outcomes are a secondary topic. refer to page 8, lines 176-179.

4. The authors thank the reviewers for comment regarding the presentation of results. The two cardiac groups were not directly compared in this study. Still, they were included as binary variables in the cardiac complications /interventions regression model, where the outcome was the total adherence score. The comparison of total adherence score in the preexistent cardiac group was found to be significant ( p = 0.004 ) Table 5.

Reviewer#3

1. The authors thank the reviewers for the feedback on the opening statement in the discussion section, referenced with Table 2, where the final multivariable linear regression model results are presented. Accordingly, the manuscript revised to reflect the findings and statement.

This comprehensive retrospective study supports the hypothesis of an association between the adherence score to the guidelines and some clinical variables indicating improved outcomes with greater adherence (Table 2). But the most significant was decompensated heart failure (p < 0.001) and elective LSCS elective (p <0.001) contingent upon the inclusion of multidisciplinary team collaboration in high risk pregnancies, therefore, increased adherence as previously reported (20).

Further discussion is included in the manuscript on heart failure and delivery modes pp 29-30. Refer to page 26, lines 370-374, page 29, lines 442-478.

2. We thank the reviewers for the feedback question on which parameters in the score are more likely to increase sensitivity to heart disease diagnosis in the first trimester?

No single parameter increases sensitivity to diagnosis of heart disease; however, clinicians' awareness and preparedness of women's preexisting cardiac conditions and the guideline appropriate care helps anticipate potential pregnancy complications. Therefore clinical physical assessment and accurate history taking in the first trimester are strongly recommended. Likewise, in women with acquired cardiac conditions, the health care professional's clinical intuitiveness to adjust the care trajectory as per the guidelines may mitigate severe complications—discussed in manuscript page 28.

The clinical audit examined routine CV screening in the overall adherence score, the healthcare professional who assessed the woman at the first visit. Still, the healthcare

professional's expertise and knowledge who assessed the pregnant women at the first antenatal visit influenced the information captured.

Routine prenatal health (cardiac) screening is not undertaken on all pregnant women. In South Australia over the last twenty years, midwives triage booking visits, which has worked well for most women and has improved detection of psychosocial issues and domestic violence. But there is no medical input. Therefore depending on the expertise and knowledge of midwives of risk factors, i.e. IV drug user, indigenous and RHD, cardiac /family history might be missed. Importantly, the perinatal guidelines for women with cardiac disease in pregnancy recommend identifying women with previous pregnancies and cardiac history, cardiac assessment, preconception cardiac education where applicable, i.e. preexistent cardiac group and specific cardiac investigations and neonatal risk assessment pertinent to cardiac conditions. This information was collected in the clinical audit, scored and reported in the logistic regression analysis in Millington et al. (2020).

3. The information in Supplementary Table S IX should help to clarify the reviewer's concerns. Cardiac optimisation included advanced life support in cardiac arrest, diuresis in decompensated heart failure, respiratory support to manage hypoxia, inotropic support to manage cardiogenic shock, haemodynamic monitoring during and immediately after delivery and management of cardiac arrhythmias with anti-arrhythmic medication, DC cardioversion or implantation of an internal cardiac electrical device. We have included this in the discussion to assist in the clarification as requested. refer to pages 30 , Lines 446-471 plus supplementary Table IX.

4. The authors thank the reviewers for further clarification on calculating the total adherence score and minimum acceptable score for the two cardiac groups. Calculation of total score was reported in earlier publication and achieved by quantifying perinatal guidelines, i.e. planned care variables were used to calculate the total score of 40 (N=40). The manuscript has been revised as requested. Page 7, lines 142 – 151.

5. The authors thank the reviewers for further clarification on guideline adherence score for groups of patients is calculated. The final Multivariable linear regression results Table 2 includes the unstandardised coefficient beta, and so the mean difference is the calculation from the unstandardised beta coefficient linear regression equation. See page 19, lines 317-319.

References

Heinze, G., & Dunkler, D. (2017). Five myths about variable selection. Transplant International, 30(1), 6-10. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/tri.12895

Millington, S., Arstall, M., Dekker, G., Magarey, J., & Clark, R. (2020). Adherence to clinical practice guidelines for South Australian pregnant women with cardiac conditions between 2003 and 2013. PLoS One, 15(3), e0230459-e0230459. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0230459.

Millington S, Magarey J, Dekker GA, Clark RA. Cardiac conditions in pregnancy and the role of midwives: A discussion paper. Nursing Open. 2019 0(July 23). doi: 10.1002/nop2.269.

Siu, S. C., Marcotte, F., Taylor, D. A., Gordon, E. P., Spears, J. C., Tam, J. W., . . . Investigators, C. (2001). Prospective multicenter study of pregnancy outcomes in women with heart disease. CIRCULATION, 104(5), 515-521. doi:10.1161/hc3001.09343.

Silversides, C. K., Grewal, J., Mason, J., Sermer, M., Kiess, M., Rychel, V. . . . Siu, S. C. (2018). Pregnancy Outcomes in Women With Heart Disease: The CARPREG II Study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 71(21), 2419-2430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.02.076.

Roos-Hesselink, J., Baris, L., Johnson, M., De Backer, J., Otto, C., Marelli, A. . . . Hall, R. (2019). Pregnancy outcomes in women with cardiovascular disease: evolving trends over 10 years in the ESC Registry of Pregnancy and Cardiac disease (ROPAC). European Heart Journal, 00, 1-8. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz136.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Tabulated Rsponse to Reviewers 21062021.docx

Decision Letter 1

Sara Ornaghi

9 Jul 2021

The association between guidelines adherence and clinical outcomes during pregnancy in a cohort of women with cardiac co-morbidities.

PONE-D-21-08006R1

Dear Dr. Millington,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sara Ornaghi, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The Authors adequately addressed my comments clarifying statements and including data also in supplementary tables.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

Acceptance letter

Sara Ornaghi

16 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-08006R1

The association between guidelines adherence and clinical outcomes during pregnancy in a cohort of women with cardiac co-morbidities.

Dear Dr. Millington:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Sara Ornaghi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Cardiac diagnosis.

    (PDF)

    S2 Table. Neonatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease and abnormalities.

    (PDF)

    S3 Table. Coding of clinical interventions, complications, and outcomes for SPSS variables for obstetric, neonatal and maternal cardiac.

    (PDF)

    S4 Table. Baseline characteristics for the cohort.

    (PDF)

    S5 Table. Univariate linear regression model results for adherence score versus obstetric clinical variables, neonatal clinical variables and maternal cardiac variables.

    (PDF)

    S6 Table. Univariate linear regression model results for adherence score versus obstetric clinical variables, neonatal clinical variables and maternal cardiac variables.

    (PDF)

    S7 Table. Univariate linear regression model results for adherence score versus obstetric clinical variables, neonatal clinical variables and maternal cardiac variables.

    (PDF)

    S8 Table. Cardiac arrests cases, associated pathologies and outcomes.

    (PDF)

    S9 Table. Cardiac, obstetric and other indications for emergency and elective lower segment caesarean section.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Tabulated Rsponse to Reviewers 21062021.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES